Observer Food Monthly

[Andy Lynes]

Whats the egullet opinion on the Observer Food Monthly. I thought the latest edition (14/10/01) was an enjoyable read. The Coppola profile was informative and well written, with some new facts (to me at least) about the history of his wines coming to light.

I enjoyed Jay Rayners stuff on kids and food and his review of Rules. The 1987 and all that was a bit celebrity led for my tastes, and I can live without more boring Nigel Slater real fast food recipes, but overall 6/10.  

[Jon Tseng]

Mmm. Stil think OFM has never lived up to its potential.

Always seems to lack ideas:

-Piece on seasonal ingredients of the month

-Standard celeb interview dressed up with a 'food' slant (wouldn't look that out of place in the normal magazine section,

-(Yet) another Heston Blumenthal article (yes the man is a genius, no crab ice-cream is no longer a surprise),

-Standard ingredient-theme-piece (viz Sainsburys magazine)

-Standard ingredient-theme-with-recipe piece

All well-written and readible, I give you but nothing which would have looked out of place in the weekly food section of any food magazine in the last five years.

Dunno.  Guess I couldn't do any better, but to me a magazine lives not only by quality of writing but the originality and interestingness of its article ideas...

Plus why are the restaurant reviews still stuck away in the other supplement? If eating out is so much a part of foodie culture now, surely OFM should have some eating out reviews (FT runs restaurant reviews in both its Weekend Review and W/E magazine - surely OFM could do likewise).  I still think OFM is missing out on a chance to produce definitive, in-depth reviews a la the US model (more on this beef at a later date).

That's my thruppence anyhow...

ttfn

J

[Simon Majumdar]

I have avoided reading OFM as it always has articles by an ex friend of mine.

That not withstanding on the occasions I have seen it, I find it to be one of the laziest pieces of trash I have ever set eyes on

The analysis of celebrity baskets, the low brow approach to reviews, the articles with desperate wanna be celeb chefs all wanting a little bit of the Oliver action.  All in all a truly risible magazine.

I am not suggesting it should be highbrow or elitist in any way, but surely even readers of this tired old piece of chip paper deserve more that the OK or HELLO approach to food.  Perhaps not?

S

[jayrayner]

Bugger. Bugger. Bugger. I've been lurking for weeks and now you drag me out of the wood work. Michael Lewis can rest easy though; pressure of work means I won't be troubling him too much with my presence. I agree with much of what both of the first two of you have to say: that OFM has improved but that it has a long way to go. (I'm afraid I can't bring myself to agree with simon, not because he is not a throughly wise chap but because he admits to not having seen OFM recently. It undermines his rant a little.)

The mag is still way too obsessed by celebrity. There are structural reasons for that to do with tiresome power structures at the Observer whch I won't bore you with. I argued, when the idea for the classic restaurants space came up (of which Rules was the first; probably Harry's Bar to follow) that it should replace the My favourite Table feature which really is celebrity drivel at its worst. So far I have been completely unsusccesful. I will continue to argue.

On the restaurant reviews point, personally I would prefer them to stay in Life so that readers know where to find them. The theory - as with the Sports mag - is that the food mag is a supplementary to the weekly food and drink regulars in Life. I think that's generally right. As to whether there should be longer  restaurant reviews a la Saveur or Gourmet I'm really not convinced. I really do think 1000 words is enough, certainly in a national newspaper.

That's it from me

Jay

[Simon Majumdar]

Jay

these are all, as ever, fair comments.  I think moving the reviews away from Life is ghettoising eating out as some foodie concept which is neither fair nor true

Keep fighting those that push for nose up the bottom of celebdom and I will keep supressing my desire to stick pins in a doll of AA Gill

S

[Andy Lynes]

Jay, thanks very much for emerging from the shadows. We hope to hear a lot more from you.

I can't see how you can move a weekly column to a monthly supplement. I do agree however that additional reviews in the magazine wuold be a good idea, but you have already done this with the Rules article to a certain extent.

[Steve Klc]

Hey guys--is this section available online?  If so, how about a link?

[Jason Perlow]

Jay:

Thanks for joining up! Its always a huge compliment to know that professional food writers like yourself utilise us for research and whatnot... and we have some of the best international boards anywhere.

Please feel welcome here, theres no need to be shy.

[Jon Tseng]

Kewl! Celebrity journalist! (and commenting on celebrity journalism! Ah irony... ;-)

Anyhow:

i) suspect the fundamental problem with OFM is it whether to appeal to a) foodies or b) wider audience.  The comparison with OSM is that there are far more sport geeks (or whatever the sporting equivalent to a foodie it) out there, so that issue does not have this dilemma, so it can run as many Top Tens, greatest ever..., obscure historical bits as much as possible.  Bottom line: OSM has a larger core market than OFM (hmmm).

ii) Ironically best thing in OSM is as Top Ten's, Greatest ever etc.  Still think this would be a fantastic idea to add something like this into OFM (see the Chef of the Century threat for evidence of the everlasting appeal of true genius).  But then again you run into the is-there-an-audience-for-it problem.  Either you can write as an unashamed foodie and dammit if no-one gets all the side-references (viz Terry Durack) or you can do the Hello! thing...

iii) Resto reviews. Arse. Yes, can see how the power-brokers at Life don't wanna lose their free meals. hmmm. Still think supplementary in-depth reviews would be a good way to stand out from the competition in the way that yet another ingredient-theme-with-recipes-piece doesn't.  In the long run if you could build a Maschler-esque reputation as the place to go for the definitive blag on the latest new joint it would be the repositary for definitive review earning you much kudos and many free luncheon invites... (or something)

iv) Real cookbook reviews! (again I guess the Books section would scream bloody murder - but I never see them review Dornenberg-Page's latest...).  Haven't seen proper cookbook reviews (incl. road-testing of recipes perhaps?) in any major newspaper (viz the ones in Caterer by chefs or the hand-on reviews in Cooks Illustrated - both fantastic). Surely something that would sit well in OFM?

As they say, it's much easier to sit on the outside and throw stones...

wonder if i hit anybody ;-)

Cheers

Jon

[Steve Klc]

I found the link in case anyone wants to wade in:

http://www.observer.co.uk/foodmonthly/0,9957,475349,00.html

[Jason Perlow]

I love the peice where Jay takes his kids out to eat. Hillarious!

[Fat Guy]

Welcome to the boards, Jay. We hope to make you rue the day you came out of the woodwork! Can you tell us a little about yourself? Maybe we could convince you to post a bio in our Member Bios section. In fact, I'm not supposed to say this, but we've all been talking about getting rid of Andy Lynes as our UK host and replacing him with you. Please don't repeat that, though -- Andy might get upset.

[Rosie]

Welcome Jay. Glad to have you posting and not lurking.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

OFM? Poor all round I felt, but I would single out the Rayner - Heston Blumenthal love-in for special criticism. This Fat Duck advertisment feature showed once again that Rayner has yet to make the long overdue trip to El Bulli.

[Steve Klc]

Jay--your article was a hoot, well written and delicious--regardless of what one may think of Heston Blumenthal as a chef or whether one has made the pilgrimage to El Bulli.  I couldn't help but envision a few restaurant critics, editors and food writer "acquaintances" of mine filling in all too easily for Eddie, Harry and Izzy as I read through your piece--especially Izzy as a rail-thin prissy Martha Stewart Living editor I once cooked for, who didn't touch a thing except for the chocolate dessert, which she proceeded to devour and then claim wasn't up to snuff.

It's the only article of the section I've read so far, but I enjoyed it immensely.  

[jayrayner]

First a quick response to Michael Lewis's primal scream therapy (I'm sure barking at me is a lot cheaper than getting a shrink): the pitch was to take kids to the most gastronomically ambitious restaurant in Britain. I chose the Fat Duck because it is doing things that others aren't. And I went to Heston; he didn't come to me. So you can't accuse him of seeking the publicity.

But on the more general point, accusing Blumenthal of being derivative or simply of copying: does that mean that we can't have gastronomique French restaurants in britain - Petrus, say, or Champignon Sauvage or even Gordon Ramsay - because Ducasse, Savoy and the rest have already done that stuff in france? Are we only allowed one of each? You want me to go to El Bulli. I'd love to go (you paying?). I suspect you'd like me to go because you think it's better, more experimental, more developed than the Fat Duck. In other words, the mere fact that you suggest I pay homage to Catalonia, implies that  the Fat Duck is not doing the same thing.

Lots for you to rant on there, Michael: go to, go to.

Re Jon's analysis of the differences between OSM and OFM you are, of course, spot on. While more people eat in restaurants (of all kinds) than, say, attend football matches they do so less obsessively. Food and drink is clearly a boom area for newspapers but working out how to do it poses problems. At the Observer two out of the three most senior people have been sports editors of one kind or another. They know how to do sport. They understand it. They don't understand food and so the only way they feel they can approach it is through the prism of celebrity. As a hack of old I would accept we need some of that. But we could also be a little more lush, a little more adoring of food for food's sake: the Steingarten approach if you like.

The cook book reviews idea is both obvious and therefore v. good. I will swiftly steal it and claim it as my own. The toruble is of course that they'll go 'oh yeah, lets have books by Jamie, Nigella, Gordon...' Ho hum. I tell you, its much less complicated playing news feature reporter (my other role on the paper).

Jay

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Your ill reasoned suspicions re my motives have resulted in a rather obvious non sequitur. I am not accusing Blumenthal of being derivative I am stating that Blumenthal plagiarises (for specific details go to Chowhound and use the search engine) and one of the restaurants he lifts from is El Bulli. Blumenthal is not then an obsessive genius, but rather a run of the mill and unscrupulous chef with an unusual don for getting himself and his business in the papers.

I doubt that when reporting on a news feature you would use as your sole fount of information the Chiswick & Hounslow Echo. Neither would one who had read nothing but Jackie Collins presume to review the latest novels, but is it different with restaurants? Without having been to El Bulli how can you expect to be taken seriously as a restaurant critic?

Once again you bring your professional integrity into question, but worse still you debase the Observer, a once great newspaper.

(Edited by Lord Michael Lewis at 6:01 am on Oct. 17, 2001)

(Edited by Lord Michael Lewis at 6:02 am on Oct. 17, 2001)

[jayrayner]

Ignoring the rather tiresome personal attacks Michael may have raised an interesting question here.

So... which restaurants does everybody think a restaurant reviewer must have visited before they have the right to do the job?

Ps. Michael - are you really a Lord?

[Adam Lawrence]

Hmm... difficult one. My major bugbear with reviewers is how infrequently most get outside London. I'm not sure how the circulation of the Observer breaks down regionally, but I think that, in general, the national press is still too London-centric (This isn't a personal attack, Jay - I've noticed a number of non-Tahn/Tine reviews in your column recently).

Connecting this with the OFM topic, I suspect part of the reason is the still-there link between restaurant/food coverage and 'society' stuff - and this is reflected by the whole celeb thang. You see it all over the food press - who eats here, can you get a table at Resto X if you're Somebody, Michael Winner and Adrian Gill wittering on.... And, of course, Society is London-based, except for the occasional excursion to the Country. True, the food culture _is_ far more advanced in London than anywhere else, so a bias in favour of the capital isn't surprising - in fact it's probably desirable, because it helps, even if only slightly, with the trickle-down effect.

And, having digressed frantically, I place my vote for Le Manoir aux Quat'Saisons as a place you must have been to qualify as a reviewer. Just because.... well, just because.

Adam

PS. If Michael is a Lord either he forgot about it while on Chowhound or just got ennobled (thinks: must check last batch of life peerages.....)

Prince Adam of Azerbaijan

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Ignoring the rather tiresome personal attacks Michael may have raised an interesting question here.

Exquisite use of rhetoric, quite Ciceronian.

Is there any chance that you address the substance of my last post?

[Andy Lynes]

Quote: from Fat Guy on 4:16 pm on Oct. 16, 2001

we've all been talking about getting rid of Andy Lynes as our UK host and replacing him with you.

I'm sulking now, it's not a pretty sight.

I sort of concurr with Micheal in that if you want to assess the importance/originality of any particular restaurant on a global basis, then of course you must have eaten in as many places across the world as possible.

However, it is quite reasonable to say that a particular place may be the best in London, the South, the country if that is your experience.

If you were to review Le Manior, would it be necessary to contextualise every observation you make in terms of small luxury hotels with award winning restaurants in the rest of the world, just every other 2 michelin starred restaurant in Europe or simply every other restaurant in Oxfordshire.

I think it's important to remember who you are writing for, and to what end that review might be put. In the Observer, most readers will have a casual interest in food and wine and will be simply looking for somewhere to eat rather than a scholarly assessment.

As far as the Duck goes, and I know we've had this arguement before, Blumenthal is a devoted professional who has taken a different path to many chefs in this country by using the expertise of those outside catering world to improve processes and techniques within it. He is genuine about what he does and how he goes about it. And no I haven't eaten at El Bulli and yes I'm sure I'd be as impressed as everyone else seems to be. One day maybe.

   

[Adam Lawrence]

Andy, I think Michael's argument is that Blumenthal is a plagiarist - he believes he rips off recipes without crediting their genuine creators, and is profiting from the innovations of others. Whether or not one enjoys eating at the Far Duck is pretty much an unimportant point.

I've had lunch at the FD once and enjoyed it very much. I haven't been to El Bulli, nor Michel Bras, and, like you, I would very much like to. And I can see why HB getting all this press - 'most challenging chef in Britain' etc might be pretty galling if you have and you believe that Blumenthal's ONLY trick is imitating them.

I don't know whether it is or not (though I do think it's significant that, if all you need to do is rip off Ferran Adria and Michel Bras to get a Michelin star and be full for every service at GBP100 per head, there aren't more chefs doing so). But it seems to me that most people (me included) who eat at the Fat Duck come away feeling they have had a terrific meal and an entertaining time. And that, I think, is the only issue that matters when judging a restaurant.

[Andy Lynes]

Quote: from Adam Lawrence on 2:52 pm on Oct. 17, 2001

But it seems to me that most people (me included) who eat at the Fat Duck come away feeling they have had a terrific meal and an entertaining time. And that, I think, is the only issue that matters when judging a restaurant.

I agree, and believe that you can compose a valid and useful review of any restaurant on basis of was it enjoyable and value for money alone.  

[Jon Tseng]

Ack. Two debates in one.  Both veering rapidly off-topic!

i) VIZ REVIEWS.  I guess where one should have supped depends on what you want from a review. Two positions:

a) if you think a review should be a fount of definitive, objective criticism the review should have eaten everywhere, preferably several times.  And not just at the starred places. After all you would expect a theatre critic to have read both his shakespeare and his pinter wouldn't you? If a lit. critic should be as widely read as poss, a food critic should be as widely eaten.  Industry experience also useful.

b) if you think a review should tell you 'would i have fun nite out here' the only real criteria for reviewer is that they should be normal.  Indeed, in-depth experience or industry knowledge would be a negative, as these distract from the reviewer's ability to assess the experience as an ordinary punter.  After all, food is only a very small part of the overall experience...  Atmosphere, setting, service... you don't need to have only been to restaurants to be able to size these up.

as ever, the truth is somewhere in between.

ii) VIZ OVERWEIGHT AQUATIC POULTRY.  Criticising Heston for not being original seems like criticising Messr. Jay (due respect) for not being Elizabeth David.  Chefs virtually never doing genuinely original stuff (viz the saying about a great chef being one who discovers one genuinely new dish in his lifetime eg Senderens, lobster and vanilla). I suspect Adria has just lifted the bar a little to high in terms of originality/expectation. bastard.

Anyhow, chefs (even Adria) always build on what their predecessors have done, and from what I have seen/tasted Heston is more original than most. ####.

ttfn

J

[Fat Guy]

Plagiarism doesn't have a clear analog in the culinary world. The traditions of cooking have grown around a different set of assumptions than those of writing. Chefs dine at one another's restaurants all the time for the express purpose of adopting ideas into their own dishes. I suppose it's poor form to copy a dish entirely, but to incorporate a technique or combination into a dish of your own is entirely acceptable by the long-standing standards of the industry.

Heston Blumenthal may or may not have emulated certain menu items, or subdivisions thereof, from El Bulli. But I doubt his menu is overall a knockoff. Were it a successful copy of El Bulli, I'd still be impressed. That's the big difference, I think, between plagiarism and culinary copying: If you copy what someone else wrote you are a lazy thief, but if you can successfully reproduce El Bulli somewhere else you are nothing short of a genius. That is not to say I buy into the fundamental notion that Fat Duck is an El Bulli knockoff.

Another point: Unless two restaurants are across the road from one another and neither is full, to say that one restaurant is not as good as another doesn't invalidate the runner-up's existence, even if the two restaurants are doing similar cuisine.

There is very little point in asking for civility in online discussion groups, because such requests tend merely to fan the flames. Not to mention, this isn't my board. So I won't ask for civility. I will, however, wish for it. It is, however, perfectly acceptable -- nay, expected -- to be uncivil towards Andy.